Major newspapers face outrage after announcing no endorsements for president

The Washington Post, speaking of the election, has lost more than 200,000 subscribers after it declined to endorse a presidential candidate this year. The Los Angeles Times has also lost thousands of readers after also deciding not to endorse. Staffers at both papers are seething. Some have quit in protest.

The twist, both papers reportedly prepared editorials supporting Democrat Kamala Harris, but the owners of both papers stepped in. While those are the highest profile media outlets deciding not to endorse a candidate, there are others who have dumped their endorsements. Count among them the Minnesota Star Tribune.

Jane Kirtley is a professor of media ethics and law at the University of Minnesota Law School. She's with us to discuss the decisions by media to refrain from endorsing candidates. It's always a pleasure, Professor. How have you been?

JANE KIRTLEY: I've been well. I hope you have been too.

JANE KIRTLEY: Yeah. It's been busy. Little busy here the past few months. It's going to be interesting to see what happens a week from today. Well, a lot of talk, as you know, in the journalism community about what the Washington Post has done, the LA Times, other papers. What did you think when you heard about these decisions?

JANE KIRTLEY: Well, I frankly was stunned about the Washington Post. I've been a subscriber to the Post since 1985. So for me, this was a body blow. Not because of whichever way they ultimately were going to go but because I think the Washington Post has, since 1976, always endorsed a presidential candidate with one exception. And I think their readers collectively were just devastated by this.

Reading the commentary, the word I kept seeing over and over was coward. And I know that Jeff Bezos, in the piece he wrote yesterday, or somebody wrote under his name, wrote yesterday. He said, I'm not an ideal owner of the Washington Post. And I think many of us today would agree with him on that.

He showed a lot of restraint for the first few years of his ownership in terms of interfering with editorial and reporting decisions, at least as far as we know. And to undertake this kind of action so close to the election is, to me, really unconscionable and reflects the fact that he's not a journalist, that's not his background, and he really doesn't understand the core mission of the news media.

CATHY WURZER: Have we seen this before when an owner gets involved and goes over the heads of the editorial board?

JANE KIRTLEY: I think it's fair to say that we have a long tradition in this country going back hundreds of years, where the guy who owns the news organization or the woman who owns it does get to stand at the bully pulpit and dictate what the editorial viewpoint is going to be.

But the distinction I would draw is that in these recent examples, these owners have not chosen to do that. If they want this to be just another hobby in their vast empire of assets, then I suppose it doesn't really matter. They can do what they want.

But I think it's a break of trust not only with their employees, with the journalists and the editorial board members, but also, frankly, with their readers. Because the readers believe the language that says we are going to serve the public interest first, not the interest of our owner.

And unfortunately, because of some unfortunate revelations in the last few days about Mr. Bezos, and Blue Origin, and meeting of his employees with members of the Trump team, it is really hard to avoid the appearance that this is all about amassing power and influence or being so worried about the impact of a Trump presidency that rather than take a stand, they've chosen to take no stand at all.

CATHY WURZER: We should say that, of course, many people on newspapers historically have made endorsements. I want to just ask you a little bit about the history of that and then go back to talking about the current situation. When did papers start to do this, and why was it important back in the day?

JANE KIRTLEY: Well, when we think about the history of journalism in this country, the press, as our founders knew, it was a highly partisan press. And there was really no question about which side you were going to be on. And there are still newspapers out there, the Delta Democrat Times in Mississippi, not a lot of question about whose side they're on.

So I think there's nothing inherently problematic about endorsing a candidate for office. In fact, I'd say it's the reverse. News organizations, if they're doing their jobs, have been tracking candidates and policy issues for a long time. They're in a good position to be able to frame this for the public.

They obviously cannot tell the public how to cast their ballots, and I know there are people who say, if you endorse a candidate, I'll vote the opposite. And that is obviously everybody's right. But to me, the point is the whole election process is so core to our system that if a news organization that has an opportunity to provide its expertise to the public chooses not to do that, I think it is real abrogation of their responsibility to talk about how important this whole process is and to weigh in. And if that means they're going to alienate some of their readers, so be it.

CATHY WURZER: But don't you think-- the Star Tribune editorial board wrote back in August, I believe that they're going to step away. They have stepped away from endorsing candidates. But instead, they're going to lay out more information about the issues that voters care about, so they can make informed decisions.

And maybe in this day and age, papers should get away from endorsing candidates. I mean, Jeff Bezos had said that he feels that readers have the ability to make up their own minds. He also says people essentially don't really care and see it possibly as a sign of bias.

So I'm wondering, maybe as our media landscape has changed, what do you think? Maybe the best course of action is to provide the information on the candidates and issues, so voters can make up their own minds instead of having the paper maybe point them in a direction?

JANE KIRTLEY: I'm certainly not suggesting that news organizations should not do that. I think all of us have turned to news organizations to get the background on candidates, and that is a really appropriate role.

But I think the endorsement carries an additional layer of, how shall I put this? It shows that you vetted these candidates, and you're prepared to put your news organization's reputation on the line to say, we've considered all this, and this is who we think is the best. I think it's a trap, and I think Jeff Bezos has fallen into it, to say that we will gain greater credibility if we take no positions.

I don't think that that is true. I think it should be true for good news reporting. But the editorial side is all about opinions. And news organizations, whether we want to admit it or not, do have opinions. If we go into non-mainstream media, they are highly opinionated.

People turn to them for direction. Whether that's good, bad, or indifferent, I don't know. But I guess my point would be that a news organization that has been carefully following these issues, topics, and candidates is in a better position to provide an informed opinion than many of those other sources of information.

CATHY WURZER: Curious what you think too. So many reporters were so unhappy about this decision, not only with the Washington Post, but the LA Times and other newspapers. And I'm wondering, journalists have been battered about for quite some time. What effect might this move have on journalists, the motivation perhaps of journalists in this country.

JANE KIRTLEY: Well, I think it has profound effects on people's morale, on the feeling that they are maybe being misled by their owners if the owner said hands off and suddenly does a 180 and says, well, except when you're going to be endorsing a candidate, and then I don't want you to do that.

Betrayal, I think, is the word, and as I said, I think both journalists and readers feel that way if you're going to say, this is my property, and I'm going to dictate everything about it, well, then everybody knows where you stand. But if you've at least said you had a hands off approach and now do this kind of change so shortly before the election, I think that's extremely demoralizing for journalists.

I think it takes a lot of courage to resign in this particular media marketplace where jobs are hard to find, and it's highly, highly challenging. So I salute those who have made that decision. I understand those who have chosen otherwise to stay on board and to continue to work from within. I think either is defensible, but it's not a good look as we're on the edge of an election to have something like this happen with two really important national newspapers.

CATHY WURZER: Well, it's always a pleasure talking to you. Thank you so very much.

JANE KIRTLEY: Thank you. It's my pleasure too.

CATHY WURZER: Jane Kirtley is a professor of law and Media Ethics at the University of Minnesota's School of Journalism.